BTL EPC Ltd. vs Macawber Beekay Pvt. Ltd.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 1004

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
BTL EPC Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Macawber Beekay Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
For the SLPC 18100/2023 : Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. Dhyan Chinnappa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv. Mr. Pranjit Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Abhirup Dasgupta, Adv. Mr. Rishabha Raj Thakur, Adv. Mr. Chirag Nayak, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Duggal, Adv. Ms. Mukta Halbe, Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala, AOR
For the SLPC 18574/2023 : Mr. Gourab Banerjee, Sr. Adv. Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, AOR Mr. Vyom Raghuvanshi, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Rathore, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Sharma, Adv. Mr. Venkata Supreeth, Adv. Mr. Shubro, Adv.
For the SLPC 19227/2023 : Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. D. Abhinav Rao, AOR Mr. Rahul Jajoo, Adv. Ms. Prerna Robin, Adv. Mr. Devadipta Das, Adv. Ms. Rao Vishwaja, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gourab Banerjee, Sr. Adv.
For the SLPC 18100/2023 & SLPC 19227/2023 : Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, AOR Mr. Vyom Raghuvanshi, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Rathore, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Sharma, Adv. Mr. Venkata Supreeth, Adv. Mr. Shubro, Adv.
SLPC 18100/2023, SLPC 18574/2023 & SLPC 19227/2023 : Mr. Harish Salve, Sr. Adv. Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Grover, Adv. Mr. Aditya Nayyar, Adv. Mr. Tarang Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Arora, Adv. Mr. Toshiv Goyal, Adv. Mr. Ritwik Mahopatra, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anshul Syal, Adv. Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, AOR
For the SLPC 18574/2023 & SLPC 19227/2023 : Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. Dhyan Chinnappa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv. Mr. Pranjit Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Abhirup Dasgupta, Adv. Mr. Rishabha Raj Thakur, Adv. Mr. Chirag Nayak, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Duggal, Adv. Ms. Mukta Halbe, Adv. Mr. E.C. Agrawala, AOR

JUDGMENT :

Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise from a judgment dated 27 July 2023 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court set aside a judgment of a Single Judge, in a writ appeal¹[Writ Appeal No 1169 of 2022 (GM-TEN)]. As a consequence of the impugned judgment, a Letter of Intent²[“LoI”] which was issued by Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited³[“BHEL” (the second respondent)], in favour of the appellant has been quashed and BHEL has been directed to consider the bid submitted by the first respondent in terms of a Notice Inviting Tenders dated 24 June 2022.

3. BHEL was awarded a contract for setting up the 5x800 MW Yadadri Thermal Power Station. A part of the work was sought to be subcontracted. BHEL invited bids for undertaking the work of design, engineering, manufacturing, supply and other related works pertaining to an Ash Handling Plant. The appellant submitted its bid. On 29 September 2022, a letter of intent was issued to the appellant for a total contract value of Rs 378.64 crores.

4. The controversy in the present case turns on the pre-qualification requirement for bidders, notified by BHEL. Clause 01.00.00 deals with th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(SC) 1004

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRABTL EPC Ltd. – AppellantVersusMacawber Beekay Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
BTL EPC Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Macawber Beekay Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent